E=mc2 Polling Question

[gravityblock]

I did not start this poll to discuss the validity of the question.  Please feel free to discuss it.....but I will not participate.

If I say an apple is red....then someone will say, I thought it was green.....lol

[Koen1]

What exactly is your question then?

I see you present a view that E=mc^2 would be incorrect because,
as you put it, when a body of mass approaches the velocity c,
that body would approach zero mass and infinite energy.

That is, as Pirate and other remarked, not what E=mc^2 states.
In fact, E=mc^2 is not even a result of the Relativity theory, it was
a known fact that was taken as one of the fundamentals for compiling
the formulae that describe relativity theory. The fact that E=mc^2
had already been worked out before Einstein started his relativity work.

But to get back to the matter, the example of a body of mass increasing
velocity is one that is extensively used in just about every explanation
of relativity theory. The analysis of this situation is always the same and
mathematically valid, and states that as the body increases speed relative
to the observer, its mass also increases relative to the observer.
In the common mathematical description this can be written in the form of
"as v(elocity) approaches c, m approaches infinity".
What also follows is automatically that for every increase in velocity,
an increasingly large quantity of energy is required.

The reason why c cannot be reased by a body of mass is, then,
one of energy: as the velocity of the body nears c, the mass nears infinity,
and the energy needed to increase the velocity of the body of mass
also increases to infinity.
So to reach 1 c we would need to pour an infinite amount of energy
into the propulsion system.
And that is impossible.
And that is why we cannot reach c.
Aside from the question of whether or not matter as we know it
remains in existence when its mass becomes infinite, which is a different
matter but admittedly not any less significant.

I personally am inclined toward the line of thought that relativity theory
is a very nice classical approach to observable effects of accelleration
and decelleration, but is not a complete nor detailed explanatory view of
how space-time itself is structured.
One of the things that I find a bit questionable is the use of a combination
of discrete math and of infinity math. Mathematics with infinities does not
necessarily need to have a clear meaning in a discrete system. And of course
then there is the matter of higher dimensionality, in which space for example
can easily be infinite in 3 dimensions yet have boundaries in 4 dimensions...
... and something that has boundaries is not infinite.
And it just so happens that the Kaluza-Klein geometry used by Einstein as
basic system in which he defined his relativity theories, has several very
interesting variations which could account for the apparent infinities in our
limited dimensional set, as a slice of the multidimensional set that is spacetime.

Anyway, relativity theory is actually a bit of a stupid name and Einstein knew it
(and complained about it a few times too).
Thing is, the concept of physical systems having motions and qualities relative
to eachother was an older one and formulated very clearly by several scientists
including Christiaan Huygens, long before Einstein.
What Einstein managed to show was that there is one thing that, no matter when,
where, or how you look at it, does not have a relative speed, but rather
always has the same absolute velocity. And that thing is light, which always has
the same constant speed c.
So actually Einstein showed that there is an element in our reality that is NOT relative
to other things, that c is absolute. Should be called the Theory of Nonrelativity of Light.
You and I can travel at incredible speeds relative to another and, from our individual
perspectives (time frames) see eachother move at different speeds, and experience
a different rate of time flow. Photons, funny enough, always have speed c relative to
everything else, including fellow photons that must obviously also travel at speed c.
So two photons traveling at speed c do not have a relative velocity difference of zero,
but rather one of c.
Yes, that is counterintuitive to us humans who think that speeds of roughly a million
times slower than c are already very fast. But then again, we're not photons, we do have mass.

regards,
Koen

[ResinRat2]

Sorry Gravityblock, you have it reversed. An object gains mass as it approaches the speed of light. They've been showing evidence of  this in Cyclotrons for decades.

[lostcauses10x]

Were this mess gets it wrong its that the speed of light is not always the same. It can vary in the gravitational field to velocity as well as material it can pass through.

[EELRIJUE]

First of all, e=mc^2 is an incomplete formula/equation.

It doesn't really address the aether/zero point energy field, and that is why it seems to be in error.
or Does it?

A crude example, an automobile, while travelling, actually loses some of it's mass/weight as it speeds up in the linear direction of travel. So, in a way, that mass is being converted into motion which is really just a form of energy. Applying this to a space ship, the same should occur, and the space ship as it speeds up should lose mass, if not all,  as it approaches the speed of light. Laymen's thinking of course. The ship becomes pure energy.
Mass into energy conversion, since speed/motion is really a dimensional energy form. You are travelling through dimensions, when it comes to the aether field. That is why the e=mc^2 is improper, because it doesn't address dimensions or frequency shifts.

The aether is about frequency, as it is high vibrational field. The peak energy point being at the resonance of the aether field. So, e=mc^2 needs to take into account of the resonance to frequency or dimensions that one goes through to get to vast acceleration/speed limits.

How can a ship approach pure energy form?
It can't be done using a space shuttle and conventional propulsion. It won't work, because the ship will have a  fuel reserve too massive, and which will work against the task at hand. Ion propulsion will take too long. I believe that any ship without a forcefield will become annihilated and become pure energy as it passes into the speed of light realm. Disintegration. It is the law of nature, to return things to energy form at a certain threshold.

So for a ship to make it to light speed travel, it must have an electrical barrier between the ship and the cosmos/aether field, that insulates it from being totally converted into pure energy.

Another example of mass into energy which then allows gravity to lose hold on a structure,
is during vibration. A washing machine which is vibrating a load, will tend to be able to move across the floor easier than without vibration. Vibration is an energy form, much like speed. Both are transferable, working back and forth. Well we know, that any high energy frequencies can travel much faster through mediums than low energy frequencies.
Energy level of the frequency depending on vibration. Higher vibration, higher power.

Speed is in a way a form of vibration, compared to the aether that is. Because as you traverse the aether, you are moving through dimensions. Moving through dimensions, is like moving through frequency, so speed is actually moving through vibrations. It's all related.

Another tidbit, is that ANY mass traversing the cosmos is made of dimensions in form. So a space ship is actually a dimensional object traversing a dimensional universe.
Mass MUST equal dimensions in it's own right.

Energy on the E=mc^2 must also have direct relation to dimensions/frequency. It must have 'hum', not just a scalar measure, but a frequency.